🚀 go-pugleaf

From: Kuhn <kuhn@swe.ncsl.nist.gov>


Correction to my previous posting.  In the answer to question 2, please
substitute "Xt" for "X":

>> 2)  Do the benefits of standardization outweigh losing Andrew, Interviews, 
>>   (and others, I'm sure) applications which are not based on the intrinsics 

>As with all NIST standards, if this FIPS does not meet the needs of an
>agency, the agency is free to choose other technology.  So non X-based
>solutions would not be lost to developers who need them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'd also like to add to the explanation of what is and is not required by the 
FIPS.   It does not require agencies to write applications that call only
Xt and Xlib.  It does not prohibit vendors from supplying extensions.
At this time there is clearly a need to use both toolkit functions and 
extensions in applications.  The intent of the FIPS is to promote application 
portability at the source code level.  We can do this to some extent now by
establishing a common base.  It will be possible to a much greater extent
when IEEE P1201 completes its standard toolkit API.  At that point it will
be possible to develop many useful applications using only standard
interfaces, but even then some applications will require the use of
proprietary extensions or entirely non-standard systems.  This is
inevitable, and it would be silly to attempt to prohibit it.  Allowing the
use of extensions and non-standard systems, when necessary, also helps to
ensure that standards do not limit innovation.


Rick Kuhn

Volume-Number: Volume 17, Number 5